Since some seem concerned about "Atheist cannibalism" it might be only fair to point out that cannibalism is not only condoned by the bible and among Christians, but is encouraged (or mandated).

According to 1 Corinthians 11:23 – 29, Mark 14:22-24, Mark 26:26-28, and Luke 22:15-20, at "The Last Supper" Jesus is said to have given Apostles bread and wine saying, "This is my body" and "This is my blood".

John 6:53-56 was even more specific

Quote:

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you."

The most famous example of known cannibalism in the United States occurred in the infamous Donner Party event of 1848. There is evidence that some of the participants were Christians – and that others converted to Christianity after the experience. http://raiboy.tripod.com/Donner/id15.html

As for everyone else, not everyone could become active in Church communities, some being farmers out in the rural Sacramento Valley. Others attended non-denominational community churches, and others still prayed to God in their own way.

Questions for debate:

1. Are there verifiable examples of Atheism promoting cannibalism (or symbolic cannibalism) as is done in Christian bible and churches?

2. Is there any reason (other than prejudice) for Christians to conclude that Atheists are more prone to cannibalism than are Christians?

3. Are African and/or Island cultures that practiced cannibalism (or still do so at least symbolically) more Atheistic than Theistic?

1. Are there verifiable examples of Atheism promoting cannibalism (or symbolic cannibalism) as is done in Christian bible and churches?

I dunno...were there any atheists in the Donner party and that group that got stranded in the Chilean Andes?

Thank you for acknowledging that you don't know.

You are free to gather information about the presence of Atheists in the Donner Party or in the crash of Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 in the Andes.

Even if you could show that Atheists were present, that is a LONG way from showing exactly what I asked, "Are there verifiable examples of Atheism promoting cannibalism (or symbolic cannibalism) as is done in Christian bible and churches?"

I have shown that cannibalism (and/or symbolic cannibalism) IS promoted by the Christian bible and practiced by Christian sects.

1. Are there verifiable examples of Atheism promoting cannibalism (or symbolic cannibalism) as is done in Christian bible and churches?

I dunno...were there any atheists in the Donner party and that group that got stranded in the Chilean Andes?

Thank you for acknowledging that you don't know.

Zzyzx, you do make me wish I could raise one eyebrow in places other than the virtual world.

Zzyzx wrote:

.You are free to gather information about the presence of Atheists in the Donner Party or in the crash of Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 in the Andes.

Even if you could show that Atheists were present, that is a LONG way from showing exactly what I asked, "Are there verifiable examples of Atheism promoting cannibalism (or symbolic cannibalism) as is done in Christian bible and churches?"

I have shown that cannibalism (and/or symbolic cannibalism) IS promoted by the Christian bible and practiced by Christian sects.

You do realize that the charge of cannibalism raised against Catholicism and other churches that believe in the literal transubstantiation of the Host into the literal body and blood of Christ is straight out of the "Jack Chick" style of rant, right? It is right up there with, in my opinion, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

There is a huge difference between what Catholics (and others who believe in transubstantiation) believe happen during that very special and holy time of communion where the wine and wafers, though miraculously...and literally...transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, are still very much the form of wine and wafers, and eating the (hopefully cooked) body of an enemy, friend, or just some schmuck who was prey instead of predator. To equate the two is, well....

Not a bit accurate. Accuracy really does help in debates of this sort; the use of such defamatory language does not aid your cause. That is, it doesn't aid your cause if what you want is to persuade theists to abandon their illogical faith and come to reason. Trust me; NOBODY ever switched religions, or abandoned one, as a result of having his own beliefs sufficiently insulted.

There is a huge difference between what Catholics (and others who believe in transubstantiation) believe happen during that very special and holy time of communion where the wine and wafers, though miraculously...and literally...transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, are still very much the form of wine and wafers, and eating the (hopefully cooked) body of an enemy, friend, or just some schmuck who was prey instead of predator. To equate the two is, well....

"Transubstantiation" is a nice euphemism invented a thousand years after the storied "Last Supper" and the words supposedly spoken then.

dianaiad wrote:

Not a bit accurate. Accuracy really does help in debates of this sort; the use of such defamatory language does not aid your cause.

I have no "cause" to promote.

dianaiad wrote:

That is, it doesn't aid your cause if what you want is to persuade theists to abandon their illogical faith and come to reason. Trust me; NOBODY ever switched religions, or abandoned one, as a result of having his own beliefs sufficiently insulted.

I have absolutely NO interest in persuading anyone to do anything other than think rationally. If rational thought leads some to abandon beliefs and superstitions, so be it.

There is a huge difference between what Catholics (and others who believe in transubstantiation) believe happen during that very special and holy time of communion where the wine and wafers, though miraculously...and literally...transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, are still very much the form of wine and wafers, and eating the (hopefully cooked) body of an enemy, friend, or just some schmuck who was prey instead of predator. To equate the two is, well....

"Transubstantiation" is a nice euphemism invented a thousand years after the storied "Last Supper" and the words supposedly spoken then.

dianaiad wrote:

Not a bit accurate. Accuracy really does help in debates of this sort; the use of such defamatory language does not aid your cause.

.
3. Are African and/or Island cultures that practiced cannibalism (or still do so at least symbolically) more Atheistic than Theistic?

If you are going to touch on cannibalism in animist societies, get ready for a stick subject. You will find that only the most devout of spritualists will practice cannibalism in these societies. Its thier very belief in the spiritual side of whats going on that drives them to cannibalize to begin with. For example:

The Gabusi of new zealand believe that when someone dies of what they deem to be "unnatural causes" (murder, freak accidents, animal attack, drowning, disease , etc) they have the witch doctor figure out the cause. Often, its a "sorcerer" that is among thier own number. The accused must perform a difficult non skill based test. If they pass, it shows the victims ghost was on hand to help with the task and assured success, exhonerating the "sorcerer" who promises to give up thier evil ways. As the result comes closer and closer to failure, there is less and less doubt to the sorcerers guilt, and eventually they are killed.

Now here is where the cannabalism comes in. The Gabusi believe in reincarnation. And according to some rules they know about this reincarnation, sorcerers are invariably reborn as pigs. This makes it ok to roast and eat a sorcerer because he/she is already been undeniably proven to be/and gonna be a pig. Yum Yum.

A case of philisophical cannibalism is here:

the Inuktitut had a diet that was nearly all deer. They believe that because all they eat is deer, that they are deer themselves. There mother and father are deer. Thier brothers and sisters are deer. They literally believe that they are bones surrounded by deer flesh shaped like humans. So , when they have kuntucky fried deer on tuesday night, are they conducting cannabilism?

I must admit that I am disappointed by this post. I was quite pleased at the return of the great Zzyzx. Along with a few others here, I have generally found your threads most worthy of reading, and generally my only participation this month has been on threads which you have begun or have created. I must say, that trend is now over.

Calling the Eucharist cannibalism is nothing short of disrespectful and discourteous. Linking the Eucharist with the presence of Christians in the Donner party, and implying that this was somehow due to Christianity's promotion of the Eucharist, is nothing short of poisoning the well.

Zzyzx wrote:

I have absolutely NO interest in persuading anyone to do anything other than think rationally. If rational thought leads some to abandon beliefs and superstitions, so be it.

This is no longer a place to debate rationally. What is happening here (and recently throughout the forum) is a debate over the symbolic. Theists and atheists battle back and forth trying to link the opposing perspective with cannibalism and totalitarianism and genocide. One side equates the other with immorality, and the other side responds by equating the first with insanity. Where is the reason and rationality in such a debate?

In the realm of the subconscious, the symbolic drives our beliefs and our actions. The ideal of the American society is the prosperous democratic state in which the sovereign individual can freely act as political and economic agent. So the propaganda campaigns of each side focus on symbols that represent the antithesis or destruction of these states. Totalitarianism, genocide, and war are nothing but the dissolution of the market and the democratic society. Cannibalism is the consumption of the individual en total, the very individual who should himself be the consumer (of goods, not people!). If one side successfully links the other with cannibalism or with totalitarianism, it is as if that side is linked with the destruction of our social reality. As such, these symbols cause a visceral reaction deep in the gut (or perhaps more correctly in the subconscious mind) which is the unnerving destruction of our symbolic world.

Reason? Show me the reason here. I scoff at this reason. This is the symbolic propaganda of futility. I am reminded of Zizek and Lacan. I am reminded that each symbol, each fantasy creates within itself its own unobtainable objective. In attempting to label the opposition as cannibal or as dictator or tyrant, the critic is attempting to destroy what is experienced as the culture's dominant position (notice how the evangelical always feels "persecuted" and the atheist is acutely aware of his minority position and the legal remnants of religious establishment). Unfortunately, the very symbols chosen, be it cannibal or dictator, themselves reflect the symbolic world of the dominant paradigm. In attempting to break free from the Christian USA through "Free thinking" that objectively () recognizes Christianity for what it is, a violent tyranny of the mind and one associated with superstitious religious acts of cannibalism, the atheist finds himself trapped in the very symbolic world of that dominant culture. The symbol of cannibalism is only perceived as negative with reference to the dominant culture's ideal of individualism. And so the atheist and the fundamentalist often find themselves debating propaganda, as if the negative symbol would somehow justify the positive nature of the alternative. Meanwhile any actual rational alternatives are ignored, dismissed as "word games" and viewed as utterly alien. The symbolic world of representation within that alternative paradigm is inaccessable, and we are left with nothing but the simulation of reason in the careful ballet of symbolic propaganda. All the while, the dominant culture (which is itself nothing but repressed cannibalism and tyranny) parades on, happy to observe the futile dancing of the masses, a ballet in which reason is tossed to the side carelessly and without a moment of consideration amid the glorious plies of simulated free thinking.

I think my time at this forum is just about finished now. If I want propaganda, I can turn on the TV. It's a lot less wear on the carpel tunnels. I think my user groups just got smaller, too.